I honestly believe that liberal policies are more condescending (because they try to run your lives) but that liberals do a better job presenting their policies, while conservative policies are more respectful of people, but conservatives don't present them in a manner conducive to convincing people.

 

FWIW, I feel the same way with religion, that people who have more conservative religious values often do a poor job of presenting them. My opinion may be biased because I believe many conservative ideals so strongly, but notice as many of my peers become more liberal

 

And conservative policies don't try to run some peoples lives? Just like I mentioned in my last post, are you forgetting about gay marriage? Conservatives fight tooth and nail to make sure homosexuals are not permitted to marry each other. What, I ask, is the difference?

I think each party has it's share of arrogant and condescending members. I also think the Republican Party's share is much larger.

 

 

I agree on the first point, on the second athuogh I will concede that this website is that way, I would daresay that in the U.S. it is pretty even.

:thumb: I agree, All Tell. Whether it is telling people what kind of vehicle to drive, what temperature your thermostat should be set on, or what you can do on your own property, there is always a liberal eager to tell you what is in your own best interest and to fine or imprison you if you fail to comply.

And, from the point of someone to whom certain conservatives reply frequently, I get frustrated by the condescending tone of the posts in reply. It's as if certain posters assume I'm a complete idiot with no understanding of what I'm discussing. As well, the constant "liberal" tag in all it's disdainful intent is off-putting as well.

 

The constant labeling of Harvard MBA, George W. Bush as an idiot and the ridiculous effort to sell John Kerry as an intellectual is, IMO, a perfect illustration of the belief by most liberals that they are smarter, better informed, and morally superior to their conservative counterparts. There are some very intelligent and some very stupid people distributed fairly evenly across all parts of the political spectrum. This fact sometimes seems unsettling to many liberals who seem to believe that they hold a monopoly on intelligence.

I don't think liberals hold any monopoly on intelligence, nor morally superior. However, having it rammed down my throat constantly that certain attributes don't qualify as legitimate in the eyes of conservative posters does make me understand when a liberal poster responds in kind.

 

On many (okay, let's say most) issues, I feel very strongly in the correctness of my position. If people find that attitude arrogant or condescending, then so be it. I don't post to make friends or win converts.

I guess my question here is that if other posters are supposed to disregard your alleged condescension and arrogance, shouldn't you be as willing to do the same? I would hope that you have at least the minimal amount of respect for the strength that those who hold opposite positions feel as well.

 

IMO, the willingness to restrict other people's personal liberty and to deprive them of their property (including their hard earned money) and/or restricting their property rights is the ultimate in arrogance and condescension. Liberals disagree with me politically but my ideas will not deprive anybody of their property or individual freedom. The converse is not true.

 

In a nutshell, that could be it's own thread topic, so I won't go there here.

I agree on the first point, on the second athuogh I will concede that this website is that way, I would daresay that in the U.S. it is pretty even.

 

I meant this website. I just didn't say it.

I disagree. Whether it's telling people who they can marry or what they can do with their own body there is always a conservative telling you what you can or can not do or what you should or should not believe in.

 

I could do this with the rest of the post as well, but I choose not to. A conservative saying that liberals deprive personal liberties is hilarious! Conservatives try to tell people what they can or can not do with their own body. They try to say who you can or can not marry, even if it does not effect them at all! :lol:

Conservatives share much more common ground with libertarians than do liberals. What is hilarious is that big government liberals who believe in heavy regulation and the forcible redistribution of wealth have the audacity to claim that it is conservatives who threaten personal liberty.

 

There is no greater affront to personal liberty than the deprivation of one's personal property and property rights by the state. Conservatives generally support all of our constitutional rights not some selected subset. Marriage, whether homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with individual liberty.

Even though I know it is way too early in the process to name a winner, but I am glad that Obama is leading at this point...

And conservative policies don't try to run some peoples lives? Just like I mentioned in my last post, are you forgetting about gay marriage? Conservatives fight tooth and nail to make sure homosexuals are not permitted to marry each other. What, I ask, is the difference?

(Many of what I say here, is from "Leave us Alone" by Grover Norquist:

It was the Republican Party that passed pension-reform legislation in 2006 that will allow gay couples to pass on defined-contribution pensions such as 401(k)s not just to spouses but to anyone they choose. Republicans also repeatedly vote to abolish the inheritance tax, which is especially helpful to gays. Also, Republicans running for Congress win about 1/4th of gay vote. Conservatives are not anti-gay. There are plenty of conservative groups such as Log Cabin Republicans and The Pink Pistols that are gay, conservative groups.

 

I think that you are confusing Political Conservatives with Religious People. While many times they overlap, they aren't the same. Political conservatives believe that everyone is free to believe and argue for what they believe on their own time and their own dime. The religious can preach against homosexuality, and the gays can speak on how homosexuality is great.

 

Political conservatives have no intention of outlawing homosexuality or using the power of the state to tax or attack gays.

I agree on the first point, on the second athuogh I will concede that this website is that way, I would daresay that in the U.S. it is pretty even.

 

Agreed 100%, very accurate. :thumb:

Conservatives share much more common ground with libertarians than do liberals. What is hilarious is that big government liberals who believe in heavy regulation and the forcible redistribution of wealth have the audacity to claim that it is conservatives who threaten personal liberty.

 

There is no greater affront to personal liberty than the deprivation of one's personal property and property rights by the state. Conservatives generally support all of our constitutional rights not some selected subset. Marriage, whether homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with individual liberty.

 

That's obviously debatable...many people would feel that their personal liberty to be who they want to be and do with their body what they wish is more important then that of personal property.

I disagree. Whether it's telling people who they can marry or what they can do with their own body there is always a conservative telling you what you can or can not do or what you should or should not believe in.

 

I could do this with the rest of the post as well, but I choose not to. A conservative saying that liberals deprive personal liberties is hilarious! Conservatives try to tell people what they can or can not do with their own body. They try to say who you can or can not marry, even if it does not effect them at all! :lol:

Telling someone they shouldn't murder their unborn child is not telling someone what they can do with their body. That's always been a weak attempt of the pro-choice side.

As to the gay marriage issue, all Conservatives have said in essence is that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a women. If they want civil unions, go for it.

That's obviously debatable...many people would feel that their personal liberty to be who they want to be and do with their body what they wish is more important then that of personal property.

Examples?

And, from the point of someone to whom certain conservatives reply frequently, I get frustrated by the condescending tone of the posts in reply. It's as if certain posters assume I'm a complete idiot with no understanding of what I'm discussing. As well, the constant "liberal" tag in all it's disdainful intent is off-putting as well.

Attacking liberal ideas and positions is not the same as attacking the posters who hold those opinions. I get frustrated when some posters cannot distinguish between the two. There is nothing wrong with attacking ideas - that is the foundation of a good debate.

 

I don't think liberals hold any monopoly on intelligence, nor morally superior. However, having it rammed down my throat constantly that certain attributes don't qualify as legitimate in the eyes of conservative posters does make me understand when a liberal poster responds in kind.

I cannot comment without violating one of the BGP rules. So I won't.

 

I guess my question here is that if other posters are supposed to disregard your alleged condescension and arrogance, shouldn't you be as willing to do the same? I would hope that you have at least the minimal amount of respect for the strength that those who hold opposite positions feel as well.

I do. I have a great deal of respect for many of those who I disagree with most often. I have no respect for the poster who simply appears from time to time to take a cheap shot and then returns to the sports forums until their next drive-by appearance here. I also have no patience for those who interpret criticism of their opinions as personal attacks. If people are not confident enough in their own opinions to support them without getting their feelings hurt, then they should keep their opinions to themselves, IMO. This is not show and tell where people just post information - it is intended to be a free exchange of ideas within the rules.

 

I enjoy debate and as much as I enjoy exchanging information with those with whom I generally agree, most of my posting pleasure comes from debating ideas with those with whom I often disagree. I believe that Habib, H, HB20, and Hatz, for example understand that I hold no personal animosity toward them and that I appreciate their willingness to support their positions with the facts as they see them. I do not interpret attacks on conservatism as an attack on me personally and I wish that everybody here would adopt that same approach.

 

As for posters who might believe that I don't like them personally (even though we have not met) or that I am just here to make them miserable or to discourage them from posting - that is their problem, not mine.

Telling someone they shouldn't murder their unborn child is not telling someone what they can do with their body. That's always been a weak attempt of the pro-choice side.

As to the gay marriage issue, all Conservatives have said in essence is that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a women. If they want civil unions, go for it.

 

RTS, I have compassion for those that are "pro-life" in their abortion stance, but not all people see it as clearly...as to when life begins.

 

Actually, I don't know many conservatives that are pro-civil union, either, or to any degree willing to give protected rights in a civil union. Actually, you would be the first that I know of!

That's obviously debatable...many people would feel that their personal liberty to be who they want to be and do with their body what they wish is more important then that of personal property.

What pro-choicers usually fail to acknowledge is that fight against abortion is, in the minds of those opposing abortion, a fight for the rights of unborn human beings. Obviously, denying a person's right to exist is about as fundamental infringement on personal liberty as there is - so I do not buy the argument that abortionists are in the business of protecting human rights. I acknowledge that pro-choicers see this issue differently, but this issue is every bit as debatable as property rights.

Examples?

 

I think we're actually covering that already, before I had a chance to respond to this. (That you feel that it's a weak argument for abortion.)

RTS, I have compassion for those that are "pro-life" in their abortion stance, but not all people see it as clearly...as to when life begins.

I know you do and I realize there is a debate on that. My point is, their "it's my body" argument ends there.

 

Actually, I don't know many conservatives that are pro-civil union, either, or to any degree willing to give protected rights in a civil union. Actually, you would be the first that I know of!

Really? I know many that think the way I do, perhaps it's conservatives around here veiw it differently than in your area.